Hillary's record does not match her rhetoric
When Sen. Hillary Clinton, New York Democrat, began to readjust her campaign rhetoric to reinvent herself as a born again centrist, few bothered to check out whether she had shifted rightward in her voting record, too.It is called the politics of fraud. In the Democrat party it is also called "framing." What they mean by that is saying something that makes their liberal agenda seem acceptable. Bill Clinton was a master of the politics of fraud. It generally involves deceit through the failure to disclose material fact rather than an out right lie. They tell people they understand their concerns, but will not tell them they intend to ignore those concerns for the greater "good" of liberalism.
With rare exceptions, she hadn't. Her rhetoric had changed around the edges, as when she talked about finding common ground with right to life advocates. But "her voting record on abortion issues didn't change one iota," said an official at the National Right to Life Committee.
Yes, the New York Democrat had voted for the Iraq war resolution (as did other Democrats like Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts). And she votes for the defense appropriations bills, and a free trade bill here and there, but the rest of her votes have been overwhelmingly left-wing.
Who says so? None other than Americans for Democratic Action(founded by Eleanor Roosevelt and Hubert Humphrey), the keeper of the party's liberal flame and a yearly liberal scoring index on congressional votes.
Mrs. Clinton scored a perfect liberal rating of 100 percent from the ADA in 2005. So did Barack Obama, the freshman senator from Illinois who, after two years in the Senate, now wants to be president of the United States. Their 2006 scores, which will be out shortly, will be close to those grades.
Mr. Obama's centrist-sounding campaign speeches, inspiring perorations for compromise, unity and bipartisanship, have propelled him to his party's front ranks. He now runs close behind Mrs. Clinton in some of the Democratic presidential preference polls.
But his nonpartisan tone belies a far more liberal agenda on a wide range of domestic and national security issues (he ran against the Iraq war in his 2004 campaign and looks to government as the answer to every ill that confronts us).
In the broader scheme of things, both now head a field of Democratic presidential hopefuls that are pointedly and uniformly more liberal than the nation at large -- raising alarm bells elsewhere in the party.